tv [untitled] October 21, 2014 1:30am-2:01am PDT
has not gone on-line to take a survey to do that, it is 40 questions and it will take you ten minutes and this is where we are looking for what the preferences are and this survey will be opened for the 17th of october and what we are going to do is we are going to the results of that survey and we are going to temp er that to what we have heard from the
industry of what they can do in the proven fleets and then come back with the recommendation, of which way and how, those vehicles could be configured. >> and then that is really our next steps, and forward, with getting the comments from the stake holders, and continued to have the technical workshops with the high speed rail and we will have another one on the 30th of this month and then the intention of after the first of next year, in the spring of going at it with an rfp and to ultimately award a vehicle contract in the late fall or early winter of 2015. and that will support the schedule that we currently have. i will take any questions. >> i am sure that we have some. >> director harper? >> i know when it comes to rail roads that the and the fra and everything, the federal government, sometimes comes in that this is it. >> and so when it comes to ada,
and in which being a bus person, i am used to having to pay attention to the california ada, is that true for rail roads too or is that an indense where it is the federal ada that has to be done and california really has no discretion to or anything else? >> we have a series of conflicting requirements right now, we have the existing cpuc requirements that requires the set back in the platform and that is in direct conflict with what the fda requirements are and the federal requirements for the three inch gap and we have to go ahead and get that reconciled and get a waiver from cpuc in order to go ahead and construct those platforms, so that they will conform to the federal requirements. and fta will be providing some of the funding for the program, and the expectation, is that they will be looking for us to precisely meet that ada requirement. >> the federal requirement. >> yeah.
>> and so the cpc, looks like you are anticipating you will have to say, and we will do that. >> and that is just, and we have to have the conversation with them if we have not had that conversation yet and i know that there are instances in other location wheres there has been relaxed but it is something that we have work our way through. >> director reiskin? >> the rider ship term is pretty impressive and stunning in cal trans. it is certainly i don't know a victim of its success. but i think that there is nothing to suggest if you looked at the planned bay area that that trend will reverse. and so, understanding that thinking of about the fact that we are making what is at least in our building 100 year investment, you mentioned, the goal of 6 trains per hour, and or the plan for six trains per hour, and how do you see that
working if we don't achieve comment platform heights, and we have one platform at the transbay transit center. there are two or three stations on the cal train system that will be greatly linked to the high speed rail and the majority of the stations, do not have any high speed rail stops and so we are going to talk about... (inaudible) and the new downtown transit center and i think that the best for all of us is to find a way to make it. and i think that with the change to a level boarding for cal train, at the other stations will greatly enhance our capacity but as he said, the choke point will become how many trains can you get in and
out of thnew downtown transit center, and how does that relate to what the platform height is, and it is being driven by several stations and it is not something that is a common issue to all stations we can go to the current 75 percent, six car lengths and in future, build, and it will give us a capacity increase and it is really do you go all the way into the transbay, how much is it fourth and king, and what is that service pattern, that is part of the discussion that is ongoing. >> okay. >> so just that i understand, that i guess that it is a small number of stations but one of them is a station that connects to the airport and one of them is the high speed rail that serves downtown san francisco. >> right. >> for the latter, did i, am i interpreting correctly? that if we don't get to a common platform, height that we will not be able to achieve six
trains per hour at cal train. >> we could not put a boarding height and not do something at the other stations on the line. >> so it is that trickle effect that goes all the way back through the system and what have you to do and whether you are leaving it at 8:00 or going to 24, or going to 49, a lot the of that when you look at what the rebuild requirements will be, on the other cal train stations, and it takes you to lengthening the platforms and it takes you to great separation and that there is a whole series of requirements that are behind it. >> and no, i understand that and it is a point well taken and again, we are making an investment for the next five, six, generations.
and so i think that there are certainly going to be trade offs in terms of these impacts, but the building is right and as he said this is 75 billion dollars worth of investment altogether and i think that we want to make sure that we get it right and just again, i am not sure that i understand the answer to the question, if we do not have common platforms at transbay center, and the terminus in san francisco, will we be able to do six vehicles per hour with cal train. >> right now, the numbers that we have run in, and we have done a analysis that is two and we have gone up to four and we have not build a schedule that gets us to six. >> i can't answer that directly. >> okay. >> thank you. >> okay. i appreciated your slide on i guess the number of companies that you are talking to about
eleven. and i am sure that out of how many of those make bi level trains that are at the 50 inch platform? >> the majority of the ones that we talked to, were at that 25 inch. >> right. >> but there are manufacturers out there that do make the trains at the 50 inch but the majority of them that are at the 50 inch are not bi level. >> okay, but there are companies that do make the bi level trains at the 50 inch. >> yeah >> so that is, and it is something that is possible. >> yes. >> great. >> thank you. >> are there any other questions or comments? >> thank you, so much. we may have further questions, but i think that we want to get to the high speed rail presentation as well. >> thank you. >> and now, mr. bench will present for high speed rail.
>> good morning, directors and thank you for the opportunity to be with you today and i am ben, for the northern california regional director for the california high speed rail authority, to director reiskin point we have begun to have 50 year, and not that they feel like they take 50 years to get through, but rather that if we all were sitting here 50 years from now, what sort of system will we have wanted to have accomplished? what goals will we have wanted to achieve 50 years on? and so, from the authorities perspective and the first step, in that 50 year journey is our vehicle procurement and as you may be aware, the authority has released a request for it, and the expression of interest, and for our future vehicles. and ultimately, what we will be operating throughout california.
and the reoi is being used to identify and receive the feedback for the firms requested in competing and building the trains for use on the california high speed rail system. >> we expect that the authorities order will include a face order in the neighborhood of 95 train sets. on the technical side, we are looking at a single electric multiple unit vehicle, used internationally, typical of operating in revenue service at speeds of up to 220 miles an hour and i should note that the speed of the vehicle is directly related to the boarding height, which is at the 50 inch level, and as both brian and dave pointed out.
>> from the main ans perspective we need to establish a long term, and a location for a long term technical support, provision of spares, and maipt nens of those for well over 30 years, and design and construction, and operation of a heavy maipt nens facility that will allow for overhaul, and running repair and inspection, and shops and all of the support services necessary to support, the state wide system. and we will also likely have a
heavy maintenance facility site somewhere in the central valley. now the request on the response of it by october 17th, and the end of next week, and the lines will be accepted after that and it is not a hard date in terms of continuing to get the expressions of interest, so the expression of interest is not a requirement to the rpf for the vehicle procurement and the firms that do not submit any of the lines and it may submit a proposal on the date that we expect to get out by the end of this year. we expect to have the rfp out by the end of the year and we don't have the firm schedule, and the authority will issue, the rfp to begin the formal procurement process, and for in
firms that submit it, will be given the credential to ask the questions and participate on the one on one, and really give us an opportunity, as cal train, has done and as dave mentioned to fully vet the options for a vehicle, procurement and what the best possible vehicle would be for both state wide service, and service in the integrated corridors in northern california, and southern california, to maximize the operation of the trains, i just want to echo, both brian and daves comments and stress that we are fully committed to working with cal train and working with our partners to land on a solution that works for both commuter and high speed service, and in the corridor for san francisco and for us, between san francisco and gill roy, to maximize our ability to deliver the service
and, fully integrated operation that accommodates that 50 year vision that we are trying to arrive at. and so i think that as they have pointed out, we are in the midst of having those conversation and i think that we are off to a good start and we will be having a formal technical conversation at the end of this month and out of that, we will be able to hopefully land on several scenes that we can vet with the partner and bring to the policy boards for their consideration, with a menu of possible solutions to how we will get to that future operation, in the corridor. and so i am very confident, that we can get to that positive out come and i will be happy to answer any questions. >> and thank you. >> director? >> this is very interesting to me that see all of the different trains and heights.
have any studies been done for you and cal train and the tjpa on the impacts on the operations and have you guys done any work together to just figure out how we should... >> that is really what we are in the midst of and we are having a series of technical meetings, and we will be sitting down with the high speed rail technical team will be sitting down with cal train this month, and as dave pointed out to have just that conversation. and i think in general, there is a good deal of information that we all have. these are all very well trained and experienced rail road staff, and i believe that we have all of the resources and information, available to us to make the kinds of evaluations that we are talking about here, while there may be some follow on studies we have enough
information to move forward and arrive at several options for our future considerations. >> so i will ask that the get the regular report on the agencies working in particular on the impact of the operations. >> and how we are moving forward. >> i would recommend that we agenda this same topic for our next meeting, and perhaps, with a resolution for the board to consider in terms of endorsing a common boarding platform and because i think that there are benefit system wide, but just, in our roles as the board for the tjpa, and i think that we have to look out for our facility, and i think we will be significantly limiting the
useful life of the utility of the facility if we end up with the different platform heights and so i would like to suggest that with the, and i guess, the rest of the board's consent that we ask the staff to draft a resolution that will be supporting that kind of a solution and also, i guess that with that, supporting the regional coordination, and the funding, and whatever impacts that it has because it will have the impacts to cal train, if not to both the high speed rail and cal train, and so we want to be cognoscente of what those impacts might be. in terms of the time lines, and it looks like you are ready to go out to rpf at the end of the year for the vehicles and cal train is following close behind and everybody has talked about the need to coordinate and negotiate and we are already coming up omid october, and at least, a small window to get
this resolvd and my, getting that right? that we basically, that we, all need to have this resolved, and within the next 60 days? >> i think that you are getting that right? that is part of our urgency and part of the urgency and we are trying to evaluate that the appropriate information and to be sure that we are looking at each system, and in a way that it helps to serves the operational needs and addresses it is long term needs and because we very much view both the transbay and the terminal center project, and the electrickfiation of the corridor and of the first two projects in the bay area, and we expect that the electrickfiation of the cal train is just the first step in that electrified operation and follow on high speed service in the corridor will be a natural
evolution of rail operations in the corridor and two distinct systems putting together their own program and so we have been very much working on an integrated process over the last couple of years, and you are right, the time line, is short. and that is part of the reason that we are working on the regular basis to get together, between the authority and cal train, as well as our funding partner and mtc and the ta and our other partners to insure that we are moving as quickly as we can, and given those time constraints. >> okay, thank you. >> and i think that one of the, and director lee can speak to this, one of the big challenges for cal train, is that the notion that they will be running dual service for many years, and which would make the higher platform more difficult which is why, i think that it could present a significant funding challenge if we were going to try to get all of the
cal train vehicles replaced, in a such shorter window. and but, that is, and i think that is perhaps part of the path towards the better 50 or 100 year solution. and >> if i may, what i might add to that and part of what is in the conversation in terms of the long term investment, in the corridor, with the advent of the cap and trade funds and it has given us the ability to advance the state wide program at accelerated level and one of the things that the authority is in the process of evaluating is to make a determination on how we can potentially accelerate in the investments in northern and southern utah while the central valley project continues at pace under construction as it is today. and so, looking at those opportunities to invest a little more aggressively shrinks the time line between td the commute between the services once it is operational and follow on the high speed
service in the corridor and how can we get to those necessary improvements to accommodate the future high speed service in the corridor and so that is part of the discussion that we are looking at and part of what may allow us to pursue a strategy that you are alluding to and which is how we can get to if we determined that a level boarding, scenario is possible, at our specific stations and pgc and that we can help and work with cal train and to help establish the facilities and that the program goes on and certainly, in a corridor of this length when you are talking either station improvements or the great separations or passing tracks and you are looking at a 20 or 25 year program and you are not talking about a 5 year program and so determining the sweep of the improvements over five or ten year increments over the future is one strategy that we are looking at in terms of how we take the bite out of this
very large apple. >> thank you. >> and director harper? >> yeah, i am, and i am quite impressed and relieved and i detect, absolutely no, preconception, or anything, and these are real engineering problems. and so, the question that arises, in my mind, is whether between and with this problem, what if any decisions do you need from this board? that you know, that it is a..., and is if a pronouncement of yeah, we want the level here and that is handy, fine, because, i have not heard from our people, exactly okay, for the purposes of constructing the terminal for phase one, and is it thering that we have to
decide? because we have to make the decision busy don't want to interfere with what is almost a national process, because i mean that i was in chicago last week and i rode the metro rail all over the place and i don't want to have the board come in and play, that this is what we want it there for, if we don't have to for the reason of the current construction and director harper, i think that we are very much in the process of putting together the tools for you to make that decision. and to provide this board, and our respective governing boards the options as a way forward, on this issue. so part of what we expect to accomplish, over the next several weeks is to make a determination, of what the best way or what the menu of options
as a way for it would be, and then give you, and our other governing bodies the opportunities to look at those option and consider them reasonably and to make a determination in terms of what you believe to be in the best interest of both, the i think that we have the comments and the transportation authority here. and so, actually, i don't know if i misheard you, i thought that you had mentioned that high speed rail rfp would go out the end of 2015. >> and at the end of this year. >> by the end of this year. >> and okay, and this is for, is there a specific schedule that you are trying to meet, because it is familiar with what is happening in the southern portion of the high speed rail. >> but it really is driven for the moment by the construction in the central valley and as you are aware we are under
construction and we are building the high speed rail between the cities. and that project is under way and as a result of the contribution, of the american recovery and reeninvestment act fund, the 3.3 billion from the federal government that is helping us move that project section forward, that project section, is expected to be completed by the end of 2018. and it is being constructed as is the state wide projects and all of the projects done in the segments that are done in a way that accommodates the usable segments and we expect to have, excuse me, we expect to have an operational segment in the central valley, by the end of that construction, as a result, we need to have, vehicles available for initially testing and certification, because, one of the many opportunities that the central valley project affords us is the opportunity to insure, that we can in fact, run our transit, 220 miles an hour.
>> is it roughly, a four year process, is that why it must go out at the end of the year. >> that is correct. >> are you confident in the next 60 days that we are going to come to an agreement on the compatible plan on the cal train and high speed rail. >> we have a group of very talented and very committed and thoughtful individuals in all of the organizations, that are involved in this. >> okay. >> and that was my question. >> okay. >> you are confident. >> okay. >> if by any chance we don't come to an agreement in the next few months is there a possible to delay the rfp? >> there is always an opportunity to be flexible, we are confident... >> that is not the ideal. >> it likely would not be, but, we will make every consideration to be sensitive, and respectful of all of the processes that we have to go through and, we have been working very hard with the cal
train staff to be sure that we are sensitive and respectful to their environmental process and that we are as supportive as we can possibly be to those efforts and so, we are committed to doing this as well. >> thank you. and then, i understand that you had said at the beginning of your presentation and i am not a technical person or anger, that for high speed rail to go as a speed that it does, that it is necessary to have a 50 inch platform, and for the equipment that you need in the train. >> is there ever, is there ever an option for a 24/25 inch, i asked the same question of cal train and so i just have to ask of the high speed authority as well. >> again, to both dave and brian's points, what we have to pursue, in our procurement is the broadest possible option for the vehicles to consider, for the ultimate procurement. 50 inches, in terms of seeking proven technology, provides us the broadest possible options
when you get into 25 inch boarding levels you get into much more of a custom vehicle, and fewer options in terms of the kinds of vehicles that you could consider for procurement and so that is what is really driving our consideration, >> the need for 2020 and the spectrum of vehicles available. >> so most are custom and are there any that are off of the shelf? >> are there 24 inches? >> not that meet the operational criteria. >> okay. >> that we are looking for. >> that is the challenge that we run into. >> i think that that is the challenge for both entities that they are both looking to get the broadest number of bids and the, you know, the broadest swath of the companies and it is different for either. and so there is going to have to be a give from one or the other, or there is some creative solutions that i can can't conceive of in terms of how to get that and i think, you know, just speaking fr